Category: Student Posts

This past Friday, November 8, One Nation Indivisible, a two-day education integration conference, hosted a lunch and panel discussion at the Hartford Public Library entitled “Brown v. Board of Education for a New Generation.” Prominent education activists, lawyers, and professors from the New England area came together to discuss their involvement with Sheff v. O’Neill (1989), Hartford’s major education inequality lawsuit, as well as the city’s continuing efforts to diversify its public schools.

Alex Knopp, Clinical Visiting Lecturer at Yale Law School, Plaintiff’s Representative for Sheff v. O’Neill, and a panel contributor, has worked on the Sheff case for only one and a half years. This length of involvement makes Knopp less experienced than many other activists, but his knowledge about educational law makes him a valuable asset to the Sheff case. At the panel discussion, Knopp explained that as a Plaintiff’s Representative, he focuses on the implementation of Sheff’s mandates.

Knopp spoke about how the Hartford area has changed over the past 24 years since Sheff v. O’Neill was initially filed in court. One major difference is Hartford’s connections with its surrounding suburbs. Today, current education innovations in the city rely on regional cooperative structures that were not in place before Sheff. Also, Knopp argued that public financing has majorly changed since 1989. The current debate over whether suburban schools should aid less prosperous districts is the result of 24 years of Sheff activism.

The “paradigm of school reform” has also changed since 1989, according to Knopp. It is now standard for legislators and education activists to consider the relationship between the Governor of Hartford’s reform agenda and Sheff’s reform agenda. Knopp explained that, fortunately, these agendas often overlap. Along these same lines, the city of Hartford and the State Department of Education are now much more involved in the Sheff case than it was 24 years ago. Knopp stated that the State Department of Education is especially open to new school integration initiatives.

Finally, Knopp discussed the more recent educational inequality case Connecticut Coalition for Justice in Education Funding (CCJEF) v. Rell (2005) and how its existence may help the current Sheff initiative. Knopp ended his comments by affirming his support for diverse and affordable housing options, which he believes are linked to diverse and successful schools. He stated that Connecticut’s guarantee to education “is a right, and should be respected.”

 

On November 8th 2013, held a luncheon for the school integration conference “Where Integration Meets Innovation” (by the group One Nation Indivisible)with panelists discussing the progress in educational equality and the changes being made to keep education equal for all today. The panelists spoke of the Sheff v. O’Neill lawsuit, the changes that have been made with the decision of that case, and the other ways to improve educational equality in the Hartford region. Robert Cotto Jr., re-elected member of the Hartford Board of Education and senior policy fellow at CT Voices, shared his thoughts and his vision for education in the Hartford region and linked this vision to his own experience in the Connecticut educational system.

Cotto begins to explain his vision for education in Hartford by reflecting on his experience attending high school in Wethersfield when Sheff v. O’Neill was occurring. He spoke of how his parents wanted him to attend a high school that had better resources, smaller class sizes, and means to give him a proper education. Cotto talks about how he was able to receive individualized attention when he needed it and a safe and clean working environment during the school year. When he thinks of Hartford schools at the time, he says that they had outdated material, very poor facilities, and little resources to offer students attending school there. Looking back on this, Cotto talks about how grateful he was to have attended a school that “had everything Hartford didn’t”, and he wants the same for the children of Hartford today.

With this idea in mind, Cotto discusses the role of Sheff schools in the Hartford region and the types of opportunities it provides Hartford’s students. Cotto states that the Sheff schools have all of the resources that children need in order to succeed today. However, there is another type of program similar to that but with a very important difference: the open choice program. Cotto says that the open choice program gives parents the same option in choosing where their child will attend school, but it does not have a plethora of resources like Sheff does. Cotto’s main concern mostly stems from the integration of both Sheff and open choice because of the lack of resource from open choice. With this, he would see success in terms of equality as opposed to how everyone else sees success: rising test scores. In considering the integration of the two, Cotto would want to see coordination in school choice and managing kids from different regions around Hartford so that there is a better sense of who is involved and who is a part of school choice. Also, this coordination would then allow for people to see if there are appropriate resource in schools, quality teachers in each classroom, and updated facilities appropriate to sustain the staff and student body.

However, there is a problem in how education functions in the Hartford region. Cotto discusses how the main leaders in education in the city of Hartford are elected by the people. He continues on to describe the way people place a high emphasis on having their child attend a magnet school and how popular magnet schools are. Integration, on the other hand, is a very unpopular idea to many Hartford residents. Therefore, the idea of integrating Sheff and open choice would not be particularly popular among the masses. The true challenge, in Cotto’s eyes, in making this integration is how would we connect and engage people in both the idea of magnet schools and integration working hand in hand effectively to their standards.

HARTFORD, CT- Friday marked the beginning of a two-day conference hosted by One Nation Indivisible, an organization dedicated to form and sustain integrated schools and communities across the nation. The conference–“Where Integration Meets Innovation” was designed to bring together activists, educators, parents and students who have shown interest in transforming communities through the building of diverse public schools. The two day conference (November 8-9th, 2013), held across the city of Hartford encompassed a series of events that ranged from tours of schools, panel discussions, and a series of workshops that were designed to teach attendees about successful curriculums, policies and strategies that empowered public schools across the United States.

Starting off the tour at 9A.M. Principal of Montessori Magnet at Moylan School, Ms. Carolyn Hayrda led the group into the Moylan School courtyard, which Montessori Magnet shares grounds with. Hayrda explained that Montessori Magnet Schools are not usually found within public schools, but an extension built onto the original structure of the public school in 1997 allowed the Montessori Magnet school to have their own wing in the school. According to Hayrda, there are about 760 students enrolled at Moylan. About 157 of those students, are enrolled at Montessori Magnet at Moylan in their Pre-Kindergarden through third grade.

The tour followed with a video explaining the Montessori Method, a form of teaching developed by Italian Physician and educator Maria Montessori mixes students that are from 2-3 to 6 years of age and allows students to explore independence through choice and interrupted blocks of work time. The video described the “discovery” model as an educational approach that allows students to work with materials and learn about their own learning styles by exploring the materials provided by them and giving children freedom to move around in the classrooms as they wish. Many of the guests wondered how students transitioning from a Montessori approach of teaching to a regular approach of teaching and Hayrda explained that the Montessori approach allows students to become self-disciplined, allowing them  them to adjust in any educational setting.

The tour was concluded with the opportunity for guests to sit in Montessori classrooms. Hayrda  explained that the classrooms had children of different ages and teachers- that were referred to as guides. The adults in the room were referred to as guides because they act as active guiding adults in the children’s developmental psychology. Once the tour was concluded, most of the people attending recall sitting in the classroom and seeing children learn and take from their older peers as they moved around freely in the classrooms. The guides merely acted as guardians in the setting. In these Montessori classrooms, the students were expected to understand their role in the classroom. Many of these children were independent and mature beyond their years. Three year olds prepared their own lunches, while four year olds were seen cleaning up and washing dishes after lunch.

The tour of Montessori Magnet at Moylan proved to be successful in teaching those lacking knowledge about Montessori education and bringing all of the things that were taught into fruition and reality. It was interesting to sit in, take part in the Montessori method, and actually see the effects of allowing children to participate in society as independent beings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the morning of Saturday, Nov. 9th, I attended the opening plenary of the Integration Meets Innovation conference, which was titled “Building the Beloved Community: Policy, Practice and Renewed Purpose in a Diverse Nation”. The panel consisted of Dennis Parker, Susan Eaton, Ofelia Wade, and Maria Pacheco and was moderated by John Brittain. Brittain, a key player in the Sheff v. O’Neill suit and a Professor of Law at University of the District of Columbia, prefaced the discussion with a brief story about the original Sheff case. He stated that the most exciting part of the case is that it has kept the dream of school diversity alive and well in Connecticut. In the same vein, Susan Eaton, Research Director at the C.H.H. Insitute for Race and Justice at Harvard Law and author of the notable “Children in Room E4”, added that her publisher was initially upset that her book lacked a triumphant ending, however for her, the Integration Conference itself represented that “happy ending”. Maria Pacheco, Director of the New England Equity Assistance Center, had a similar sentiment, congratulating Connecticut on the many steps it’s taken to decrease racial isolation, but warning that there was still much work to be done in order toachieve the overarching goal of complete educational equity.

After these introductory remarks, the discussion focused on Ofelia Wade – The Program Director of a Spanish Dual Language Immersion Program in Utah. The Dual Language Program outlined by Wade sounded very intriguing, perhaps something that could be implemented in the Hartford metro region in the future. The program puts together classes that consist of half White and half Latino students. The class is then taught half in English and half in Spanish, thus creating an interdependence among the two groups of students. This interdependence reaches outside the classroom as well, as students are grouped with a buddy of the opposite race who they can work together with on homework assignments. White and Latino parents are also grouped into a buddy system, bringing them together to volunteer at the school concurrently. By attempting to make this program very accessible, bilingual, biliterate and bicultural themes are promoted. This helps to redefine the Latino student as an asset rather than a burden. Pacheco would later note that in such a scheme, its often Black children who are excluded from the opportunity. If such a program was to be introduced in Hartford, Black students would need to be incorporated.

Next, Eaton briefly discussed research that has proven that a racially, socially and economically diverse learning environment has achievement benefits for all students. In an increasingly diverse country like the U.S., children who learn to embrace this diversity early on are often more successful later in life, as diversity is now commonplace in the workplace. Specifically, there is proof that even White children benefit from diversity, as it increases high order thinking skills, critical thinking skills, and helps to break down stereotypes.

Finally, Dennis Parker, Director of the Racial Justice Program for the ACLU, discussed how traditional school desegregation cases in the south are being dismissed and persistent residential segregation in the North is overall remaining unchanged. Parker was more reserved than the rest of the panel in terms  of his praise for how far CT has come in school desegregation. Parker noted that it’s going to take voluntary desegregation efforts from superintendents and school boards in order to continue to make progress. Especially due to the 2007 Supreme Court ruling which barred race from being considered in building school districts. Overall, the panel did a great job of discussing many of the pertinent contemporary school desegregation themes in a short period of time.

Cities, Suburbs, Schools

11/9/13

Last Friday, November 8, I was able to attend a conference titled Where Integration Meets Innovation.  This conference was held at the Hartford Public Library and its main purpose was to aid in the Sheff Movement Coalition.  The conference had a very reputable panel with representatives such as Martha Stone, Dennis Parker, Amy Wells, Alex Knopp, Robert Cotto, and Elizabeth Horton Sheff herself.

At first I was not sure how the conference would work.  I was very nervous that I would be asked questions and I had never been to anything quite like it.  The group of students who attended decided to split the conference up into sections by speakers.  I chose to represent Martha Stone. Martha Stone is the lead attorney for the Plantiffs in the Sheff vs. O’Neill court case.  We have been studying this case for some time in class and it was truly an experience to see the actual brains behind the ideas.  Stone began her panel discussion by opening with two dates.  She said “April 27, 1989 and July 9, 1996”.  She proceeded to speak about how the lawsuit began twenty-four years ago and the decision was seventeen years ago.  She said they always begin each topic with Langston Hughes’s differed dream quote.  “What happens to a dream deferred? 
Does it dry up 
like a raisin in the sun? 
Or fester like a sore– 
And then run? 
Does it stink like rotten meat? 
Or crust and sugar over– 
like a syrupy sweet? 
Maybe it just sags 
like a heavy load.

Or does it explode?”  This quote was meant to show everyone that everybody deserves an equal chance at dreaming.  She then spoke about how in 1987 civil rights advocates approached her and how this was before Elizabeth Horton Sheff was even involved.  At first Hartford made it very clear that they did not want this lawsuit in any way shape or form.

Stone started to explain the exact reasoning for the lawsuit.  She said in 1987 and 1989 mastery tests were administered.  Hartford kids scored significantly lower than other Connecticut kids.  This was the first time that the difference in educational quality became very clear.  Over seventy-five percent of the children in Hartford needed extra help with basic reading.  This was a number Stone felt was absurd.

Finally Stone ended with a saying that I really thought was powerful.  She asked if the glass was half empty or if the glass was half full.  She said the answer was yes.  Stone followed by saying until the glass is all-full the law suit will continue.  There is no equal education in isolation.  This conference provided the community with a lot of information both facts based and hopeful wishes.  Sheff and Stone intend to make it equal for all kids to achieve their dreams. I was honored to be apart of the conference and the Hartford Public Library provided a beautiful space for a truly inspirational conference aimed for parents, educators, scholars, and activists.